Daily Times Editorial Jan 29, 2014

Would-be partners’ diplomatic minuet The Pakistan-US strategic dialogue got off to a start in Washington after a hiatus of three years marked by irritants and breakdowns. Credit for getting the stalled dialogue restarted must of course go to both sides, but it is undeniable that US Secretary of State John Kerry has had a big part to play in the process over the last year and a half. It is Kerry who announced the resumption of the dialogue on a visit to Islamabad last August. Kerry also has to his credit the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act promising Pakistan aid of around $ 7.5 billion over five years. Kerry may therefore be considered a consistent friend of Pakistan. This perception was reinforced by the Secretary’s opening remarks, in which he struck a positive note about seeking stronger ties with the people of Pakistan, praised Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s economic reforms and vision to turn the Pakistani market into a tiger economy for the 21st century. He also stressed the criticality of inclusion of women and minorities for a better future. The US, Kerry said, has added 1,000 MW to fill Pakistan’s energy gap and is looking forward to further cooperation in the fields of energy, education and infrastructure. The claim of Pakistan becoming a tiger economy has to be measured against the average growth rate of around three percent over the last five years, a sobering thought and reflective of the long road to prosperity yet to be travelled. While Kerry tried to project positivity in his opening remarks, the Prime Minister’s Adviser on National Security, Sartaj Aziz, who is leading a high powered delegation to the talks, qualified his view of the Pakistan-US relationship with some persistent lacunae. While underlining the desire for a transition from a purely transactional relationship to one that could answer to the description of a deeper strategic one, Sartaj Aziz cautioned the US not to see Pakistan exclusively through the lenses of Afghanistan and terrorism. He dilated on Pakistan’s concerns by pointing out that Pakistan’s security considerations were neither taken account of by the US when it washed its hands of Afghanistan during the 1990s nor when it invaded and occupied that country in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. Sartaj Aziz’s cautious tone, in contrast to Kerry’s ebullience, indicates the level of mistrust and perceptions of betrayal that dog the footsteps of the often troubled relationship. The contrast could be likened to Kerry seeing the glass of the relationship as half-full, while Sartaj Aziz saw it as half-empty. Of course the unstated elephant in the room was the issue of dialogue with the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, which found no mention in the two sides’ opening remarks, but was reported as due to be taken up in detail in closed door discussions. Apart from the ‘conditionalities’ mentioned above to make the relationship a truly meaningful one going forward from this year’s US/NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, Sartaj Aziz complained that Washington seemed to have a ‘tilt’ towards India, reflected in the fact that India’s concerns were forcefully conveyed to Pakistan (an unspecified reference to the Mumbai attacks of 2008) but Pakistan’s concerns did not enjoy the same emphasis when the US conveyed them to India. Sartaj Aziz wanted all these ‘conditionalities’ to be met if the US was serious about a relationship that could transcend the suspicions and complaints of the past and move forward on an even keel. We are not yet privy to what may have transpired behind closed doors after the initial opening remarks of both sides were shared with the media. However, it would not be out of place to point to the potential bottlenecks and problem areas in the relationship in future. There is no denying (idealism aside) the fact that Pakistan, far from being or marching towards becoming an economic tiger, is struggling to stay afloat. The model of development followed by Pakistan over the years has rendered it dependent on foreign aid, the US first and foremost, and therefore also opened it up to the vulnerabilities associated with dependence. The US’s clout extends beyond bilateral ties and Washington is able to influence, both positively and negatively, its western allies and the international donor/lending agencies. Pakistan therefore needs to tread carefully when engaging with Washington, whose goodwill we are not in a position to do without for the foreseeable future. Whether it is the economy or general betterment of state and society, Pakistan will remain mired in unsolvable problems and a quagmire so long as it does not tackle the issue of terrorism. Perhaps on this single task hinge all the other best laid plans of mice and men.